Literature DB >> 32237827

The importance of processing resolution in "ideal time-frequency segregation" of masked speech and the implications for predicting speech intelligibility.

Christopher Conroy1, Virginia Best1, Todd R Jennings1, Gerald Kidd1.   

Abstract

Ideal time-frequency segregation (ITFS) is a signal processing technique that may be used to estimate the energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking. A core assumption of ITFS is that it roughly emulates the effects of energetic masking (EM) in a speech mixture. Thus, when speech identification thresholds are measured for ITFS-processed stimuli and compared to thresholds for unprocessed stimuli, the difference can be attributed to informational masking (IM). Interpreting this difference as a direct metric of IM, however, is complicated by the fine time-frequency (T-F) resolution typically used during ITFS, which may yield target "glimpses" that are too narrow/brief to be resolved by the ear in the mixture. Estimates of IM, therefore, may be inflated because the full effects of EM are not accounted for. Here, T-F resolution was varied during ITFS to determine if/how estimates of IM depend on processing resolution. Speech identification thresholds were measured for speech and noise maskers after ITFS. Reduced frequency resolution yielded poorer thresholds for both masker types. Reduced temporal resolution did so for noise maskers only. Results suggest that processing resolution strongly influences estimates of IM and implies that current approaches to predicting masked speech intelligibility should be modified to account for IM.

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32237827      PMCID: PMC7075715          DOI: 10.1121/10.0000893

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  46 in total

1.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech.

Authors:  R L Freyman; K S Helfer; D D McCall; R K Clifton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Cognitive restoration of reversed speech.

Authors:  K Saberi; D R Perrott
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-04-29       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Uma Balakrishnan; Karen S Helfer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Sumitrajit Dhar; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Larry E Humes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation: effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers.

Authors:  Douglas S Brungart; Peter S Chang; Brian D Simpson; DeLiang Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Listening to every other word: examining the strength of linkage variables in forming streams of speech.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Virginia Best; Christine R Mason
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  How much masking is informational masking?

Authors:  R A Lutfi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Masking release for words in amplitude-modulated noise as a function of modulation rate and task.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Lisa N Whittle; John H Grose; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech.

Authors:  Michael A Stone; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effects of better-ear glimpsing, binaural unmasking, and spectral resolution on spatial release from masking in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Bobby E Gibbs; Joshua G W Bernstein; Douglas S Brungart; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 2.482

2.  Assessing the benefit of acoustic beamforming for listeners with aphasia using modified psychoacoustic methods.

Authors:  Sarah Villard; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The Effects of Uncertainty in Level on Speech-on-Speech Masking.

Authors:  Andrew J Byrne; Christopher Conroy; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.